To Saquist..

[Saquist]

Then, how useful is it if it's full of misconceptions?

Own your misconceptions. It's very obvious that the bible doesn't meet a litteral 24 hour period. The misconception is that of those that may have relied on hearsay over research.

This is significant. After taking in the meaning of Day from various parts of the bible, It's easy to see that in multiple location "Day" does not refer to a 24 hour day.


Asking why the bible is full of misconception is tantamount to asking "why do people speak in metaphors?" And surely this is concept that today we all appreciate.

 

[Celpha Fiael]

Own your misconceptions. It's very obvious that the bible doesn't meet a litteral 24 hour period. The misconception is that of those that may have relied on hearsay over research.

This is significant. After taking in the meaning of Day from various parts of the bible, It's easy to see that in multiple location "Day" does not refer to a 24 hour day.


Asking why the bible is full of misconception is tantamount to asking "why do people speak in metaphors?" And surely this is concept that today we all appreciate.

I've been asking several Bible scholars the following question, so don't take it as me picking on just you: What makes your interpretation the correct one?

 

[(Q)]

Asking why the bible is full of misconception is tantamount to asking "why do people speak in metaphors?" And surely this is concept that today we all appreciate.

Once again, you've changed my quote. I never asked why the bible was full of misconceptions, I asked, "How USEFUL is it if it's full of misconceptions?"

 

[SnakeLord]

This is significant. After taking in the meaning of Day from various parts of the bible, It's easy to see that in multiple location "Day" does not refer to a 24 hour day.

Here is the problem when you make the claim that "day" refers to 1000 years:

In the issue of Noah we see that it rains for 40 days and 40 nights. What the bible therefore is actually saying is that it rained for 40,000 days - which is problematic given Noahs supposed lifespan.

But no, the religious think they can just make it up as they go along. The bible writers were idiots, one minute not knowing what a "day" means, and the next knowing perfectly well.

What you would have to do is justify why you claim the biblical writers didn't understand what a "day" was, and why they actually meant 1000 years when not doing the same in any other usage of the word 'day' in the entire bible.

 

[Enmos]

In the issue of Noah we see that it rains for 40 days and 40 nights. What the bible therefore is actually saying is that it rained for 40,000 days - which is problematic given Noahs supposed lifespan.

Actually its much worse than that, i think you made a typo there.
If 1 'day' refers to 1000 years, then 40 'days' refers to 40.000 years!
This is already longer than Saquist proposes the earth has existed.

 

[SnakeLord]

Yeah, years sorry.. that's what I meant

 

[Saquist]

Once again, you've changed my quote. I never asked why the bible was full of misconceptions, I asked, "How USEFUL is it if it's full of misconceptions?"

You're dodging. The point is these are you own misconceptions. Because you're dodging this point you'll no understand it.

 

[(Q)]

You're dodging. The point is these are you own misconceptions. Because you're dodging this point you'll no understand it.

WTF?

I'm dodging???

All you had to say is that you couldn't answer the question after digging yourself into a corner, no need for the BS.

 

[Saquist]

Here is the problem when you make the claim that "day" refers to 1000 years:

In the issue of Noah we see that it rains for 40 days and 40 nights. What the bible therefore is actually saying is that it rained for 40,000 days - which is problematic given Noahs supposed lifespan.

But no, the religious think they can just make it up as they go along. The bible writers were idiots, one minute not knowing what a "day" means, and the next knowing perfectly well.

What you would have to do is justify why you claim the biblical writers didn't understand what a "day" was, and why they actually meant 1000 years when not doing the same in any other usage of the word 'day' in the entire bible.

\
There is a certain parameter to apply the day for a year rule and a parameter for a day is a thousand years.

A day for a year is a prophetic timetable
A day to a thousand years is a Godly perspective.
Neither is applied in the Genesis account which is a man's perspective as the creation would appear from a man's perspective.

 

[Saquist]

WTF?

I'm dodging???

All you had to say is that you couldn't answer the question after digging yourself into a corner, no need for the BS.

Correction:
I could not answer the question to your satisfaction. However the question is answered in all reasonableness.

 

[(Q)]

Correction:
I could not answer the question to your satisfaction. However the question is answered in all reasonableness.

Oh, yes, of course. How silly of me to not have been reasonable.

 

[Saquist]

It wouldn't be your first time. Thus a pattern is established.
Reason is meant as yielding...In order to be reasonable you must yield to logic the boundaries of the discussion and what is probable.

If you are determined to remain opposed to the bible, then quite frankly you're wasting your time here.
(wallowing in a state of "unreason")

 

[(Q)]

It wouldn't be your first time. Thus a pattern is established.
Reason is meant as yielding...In order to be reasonable you must yield to logic the boundaries of the discussion and what is probable.

If you are determined to remain opposed to the bible, then quite frankly you're wasting your time here.
(wallowing in a state of "unreason")

YOU were the one who said that Genesis was full of misconceptions, hence ANY reasonable person would consider it's usefulness as a moot point. Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of misconceptions?

 

[Saquist]

.

There are many misconceptions about what Genesis is saying...

IT would seem that the way you color reality is subjective to your interpretation. Will you now be known for misquoting on a whim?
No wonder we've had a communication problem.

 

[(Q)]

What a waste of time. Forget it.

 

[Celpha Fiael]

IT would seem that the way you color reality is subjective to your interpretation. Will you now be known for misquoting on a whim?
No wonder we've had a communication problem.

Hate to butt in cause it's not my business, but just to point out the obvious, Q is right you know. "It would seem that the way you color reality is subjective to your own interpretation," I fail to see how you escape this as well. The hypocrisy is unbelievable.

 

[SnakeLord]

Neither is applied in the Genesis account which is a man's perspective as the creation would appear from a man's perspective

All due respect but there wouldn't have been any men around to see it - and thus the only 'perspective' would have had to have come from god:

"Guys, it took me 6 days to make the universe, on the 7th I had a rest. Oh and guys, it's going to rain for 40 days and 40 nights.. Oh and btw, as I'm a god of confusion.. when I say day I mean thousands of years, and sometimes I mean day".

Do me a lemon.

 

[Saquist]

Hate to butt in cause it's not my business, but just to point out the obvious, Q is right you know. "It would seem that the way you color reality is subjective to your own interpretation," I fail to see how you escape this as well. The hypocrisy is unbelievable.

Your opinion is noted Celpha Fiael. The facts are remain static however. Q would like to imply that I said the bible is full of misconceptions when that was his statement. I merely pointed out people have misconceptions about the bible. You're right the difference is obvious it is hard to conprehend how you see it any other way but the way the facts present it.

IF you and your compatriot were concerned more with comprehension then blame then our schism would not be in place. I stand ready at anytime to answer your question, approachable and reasonable.

That being so, I have a low tolerance conteniousness. If that was not your intent. I'm willing to accept that, but allowances for rank disrespect, lying, and hardheadedness is not something I will enable you to do when speaking to me.

In other words it's a short life, so get to the point.

 

[Saquist]

All due respect but there wouldn't have been any men around to see it - and thus the only 'perspective' would have had to have come from god:

That's correct. No man was present during the creation process on the Earth.
Does that therefore mean that the Genesis account is from the perspective of God? No.

The Bible frequently approches the incomprehensible in smaller more easier to understand terms. While we in this modern age can comprend the ammount of time that should have elasped the people who Adam passed the Genesis account to would have had a limmited scope. Far more limited than our own.

Then there is the question of how much Adam understood if any. Did Adam pass down the Genesis account to generations or was this inspired and given to Moses specificly? We don't know.

However we do know that it was meant for ease of understanding. As a result the literal number of days actually elapsed is unknown. Genesis immediately after creation states that these events chronicle the day God created the Earth. So we do know that the bible is not stating 6 literal days.

It's confusing at first. But consider why. Most churches are based on tradition and word of mouth. While it's certainly not untrue that the bible says 6 days...the question becomes is it a litteral period of time and is there substantial preocurring usage of the word in symbolic forum to suggest that these days are not litteral?

The answer is Yes, there is more than enough.

The next question is there any sign that the days in questioin are not literal?

The answer is also Yes,

Paul (I believe) speaking of the 7th day of God's rest stated of the Great Sabbath that it was ongoing even now...

True to that statement. Genesis fails to end the Seventh day...unlike the previous six days.

It is not an issue of If God had the power to create the Earth or even the Universe in just six days. The bible says plainly that he is "abundant in dynamic energy"

The question is...is God telling us through inspired scriptures that such an event occured. The facts once viewed i their entirety, say no.




Guys, it took me 6 days to make the universe, on the 7th I had a rest. Oh and guys, it's going to rain for 40 days and 40 nights.. Oh and btw, as I'm a god of confusion.. when I say day I mean thousands of years, and sometimes I mean day".

Do me a lemon.[/QUOTE]

 

[Celpha Fiael]

Your opinion is noted Celpha Fiael. The facts are remain static however. Q would like to imply that I said the bible is full of misconceptions when that was his statement. I merely pointed out people have misconceptions about the bible. You're right the difference is obvious it is hard to conprehend how you see it any other way but the way the facts present it.

IF you and your compatriot were concerned more with comprehension then blame then our schism would not be in place. I stand ready at anytime to answer your question, approachable and reasonable.

That being so, I have a low tolerance conteniousness. If that was not your intent. I'm willing to accept that, but allowances for rank disrespect, lying, and hardheadedness is not something I will enable you to do when speaking to me.

In other words it's a short life, so get to the point.

Your respone is appreciated, I was hoping to get your attention because I asked you a question above that was never answered. I was thinking maybe you didn't see it.